COVID-19 疫苗和 COVID-19 疫苗安全研究中心不良事件的因果关系评估框架。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Korean Medical Science Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e220
Seyoung Kim, Jeong Ah Kim, Hyesook Park, Sohee Park, Sanghoon Oh, Seung Eun Jung, Hyoung-Shik Shin, Jong Koo Lee, Hee Chul Han, Jun Hee Woo, Byung-Joo Park, Nam-Kyong Choi, Dong-Hyun Kim
{"title":"COVID-19 疫苗和 COVID-19 疫苗安全研究中心不良事件的因果关系评估框架。","authors":"Seyoung Kim, Jeong Ah Kim, Hyesook Park, Sohee Park, Sanghoon Oh, Seung Eun Jung, Hyoung-Shik Shin, Jong Koo Lee, Hee Chul Han, Jun Hee Woo, Byung-Joo Park, Nam-Kyong Choi, Dong-Hyun Kim","doi":"10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024. This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels-high, moderate, limited, or insufficient-while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as \"convincingly supports\" (\"evidence established\" in the 2024 NASEM report), \"favors acceptance,\" \"favors rejection,\" or \"inadequate to accept or reject.\" The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weight-of-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-of-evidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.</p>","PeriodicalId":16249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Medical Science","volume":"39 26","pages":"e220"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11231440/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Causality Assessment Framework for COVID-19 Vaccines and Adverse Events at the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center.\",\"authors\":\"Seyoung Kim, Jeong Ah Kim, Hyesook Park, Sohee Park, Sanghoon Oh, Seung Eun Jung, Hyoung-Shik Shin, Jong Koo Lee, Hee Chul Han, Jun Hee Woo, Byung-Joo Park, Nam-Kyong Choi, Dong-Hyun Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024. This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels-high, moderate, limited, or insufficient-while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as \\\"convincingly supports\\\" (\\\"evidence established\\\" in the 2024 NASEM report), \\\"favors acceptance,\\\" \\\"favors rejection,\\\" or \\\"inadequate to accept or reject.\\\" The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weight-of-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-of-evidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Korean Medical Science\",\"volume\":\"39 26\",\"pages\":\"e220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11231440/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Korean Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e220\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Korean Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e220","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在冠状病毒病 2019(COVID-19)大流行期间,对 COVID-19 疫苗与潜在不良事件之间可能存在的关联进行确证评估至关重要。韩国国家医学研究院在韩国疾病预防控制局的支持下成立了 COVID-19 疫苗安全研究中心(CoVaSC),以调查 COVID-19 疫苗与可疑不良事件之间的科学关系。尽管确定 COVID-19 疫苗是否对任何疑似不良事件负责需要采用系统的方法,但希尔标准等传统的因果推断理论存在一定的局限性和诟病。为便于进行系统的循证评估,美国医学研究所应美国疾病控制和预防中心的要求,于 2012 年提出了一个详细的因果关系评估框架,美国国家科学、工程和医学研究院(NASEM)在 2024 年的最新报告中对该框架进行了更新。该框架以证据权重法为基础,可对流行病学证据和机理证据进行独立评估,最终得出关于因果关系的综合结论。来自人群研究的流行病学证据分为四个等级--高、中、有限或不足,而机理证据主要来自动物和个体的生物和临床研究,分为强、中、弱或缺乏。然后,委员会综合这两类证据,得出关于因果关系的结论,该结论可被描述为 "令人信服地支持"(2024 年 NASEM 报告中的 "证据确凿")、"赞成接受"、"赞成拒绝 "或 "不足以接受或拒绝"。CoVaSC 成立了一个独立委员会,利用证据权重框架进行因果关系评估,专门用于评估 COVID-19 疫苗相关不良事件的因果关系。本研究旨在概述证据权重框架,并详细介绍该框架在 CoVaSC 实际应用中的注意事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Causality Assessment Framework for COVID-19 Vaccines and Adverse Events at the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024. This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels-high, moderate, limited, or insufficient-while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as "convincingly supports" ("evidence established" in the 2024 NASEM report), "favors acceptance," "favors rejection," or "inadequate to accept or reject." The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weight-of-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-of-evidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Korean Medical Science
Journal of Korean Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS) is an international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal of medicine published weekly in English. The Journal’s publisher is the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS), Korean Medical Association (KMA). JKMS aims to publish evidence-based, scientific research articles from various disciplines of the medical sciences. The Journal welcomes articles of general interest to medical researchers especially when they contain original information. Articles on the clinical evaluation of drugs and other therapies, epidemiologic studies of the general population, studies on pathogenic organisms and toxic materials, and the toxicities and adverse effects of therapeutics are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Mass Screening Using Chest X-Ray on Mortality Reduction and Treatment Adherence Among Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients. In This Issue on 25-November-2024. Normative Parameters of Olfactory Bulbs Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Olfactory Function. Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes in 44,118 Singleton Pregnancies: Endometrial Preparation Methods for Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer. Sites of Metastasis and Survival in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Korean Renal Cancer Study Group Database.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1